Internet-Draft | RFC Series Policy | September 2021 |
Saint-Andre | Expires 25 March 2022 | [Page] |
This document describes updated processes for defining and implementing policies regarding the RFC Series as a whole and thus specifies version 3 of RFC Editor Model. As specified here, the model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks. Policy definition is the responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). Policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).¶
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 March 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
The Request for Comments (RFC) Series is the archival series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including general contributions from the Internet research and engineering community as well as standards documents. As described in [RFC8700], RFCs have been published continually since 1969. The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function are described in [RFC8729] and updated here.¶
The processes and organizational models for publication of RFCs have changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009 [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1) and in 2012 [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728].¶
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 and version 2 of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of the Model (see Section 7 for a summary of the changes) while remaining consistent with [RFC8729].¶
More specifically, in order to ensure sustainable maintenance and support of the RFC series based on the principles of expert implementation, clear management and direction, and appropriate community input [RFC8729], this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into two high-level tasks:¶
This document obsoletes RFC 8728.¶
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] specified a structure consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).¶
Discussion within the RFCED-Future Program has led in the direction of a more consensus-oriented framework (similar in some respects to the structure of technical work within the IETF or IRTF) that retains roles for specialized expertise in document editing and publication.¶
Policy definition happens within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals that are subject to approval by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), after which such policies are formally established through publication in the Editorial Stream within the RFC Series. The RSWG is an open working group (as described below) that seeks input and participation through a public process from a wide range of persons who have an interest in the RFC Series. The RSAB consists of appointed members who represent the various RFC streams [RFC8728] as well as an expert in technical publishing, the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE).¶
Policy implementation is performed by the RFC Production Center (RPC), under the ultimate authority of the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).¶
In short:¶
This model is designed to ensure public processes and definition documents, clear responsibilities and mechanisms for updates and changes to policies governing the RFC Series as a whole, and operational implementation of the RFC Series, thus meeting the requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC8729].¶
The remainder of this document describes the model in greater detail.¶
Policies governing the RFC series as a whole are defined in the open through proposals that are generated by and discussed within the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) and then approved by the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).¶
Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include but are not necessarily limited to document formats, processes for publication and dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC series.¶
NOTE: There is discussion within the RFCED-Future Program regarding the appropriate name for this entity; provisionally "RFC Series Working Group" (RSWG) is used here, but the name might change in future versions of this document.¶
The RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) shall formulate proposals regarding policies that govern the RFC series. The intent is that the RSWG operate in a way similar to working groups in the IETF and research groups in the IRTF. Therefore, all RSWG meetings shall be open to any participant, and all RSWG contributions shall be subject to intellectual property policies, which must be consistent with those of the IETF as specified in BCP 78 [RFC5378] and BCP 79 [RFC8179].¶
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation informally described in [RFC7282].¶
When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an open email discussion list. Subsequently, the RSWG may decide by rough consensus to also use additional tooling (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication (e.g., in-person or online meetings), and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent with [RFC2418].¶
All interested persons are welcome to participate in the RSWG (subject to anti-harassment policies as described below). This includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG members, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to authors RFCs, and the like. The IETF LLC Board members, staff, and the IETF Executive Director are invited to participate as community members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC policies. Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively.¶
The RSWG shall have two chairs, one appointed by the IESG and the other appointed by the IAB. When the RSWG is formed, the chair appointed by the IESG shall serve for a term of one (1) year and the chair appointed by the IAB shall serve for a term of two (2) years; thereafter, chairs shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with no term limits on renewal. The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for making these appointments, such as provision for an open nominations period. Community members who have concerns about the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their feedback to the relevant appointing body. Each appointing body shall have the power to replace its appointed chair at its discretion at any time, with the replacement serving the remainder of the original chair's term.¶
It is the responsibility of the chairs to encourage rough consensus within the RSWG and to follow that consensus in their decision making, for instance regarding acceptance of new proposals and advancement of proposals to the RSAB.¶
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the roles and responsibilities of the chairs, the general guidance provided in Section 6.1 of [RFC2418] should be considered appropriate.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9, ISSUE #14, ISSUE #16, ISSUE #28, ISSUE #29, ISSUE #41, ISSUE #44, ISSUE #55, ISSUE #68, ISSUE #72, and ISSUE #80.¶
The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) shall act as the approving body for proposals generated within the RSWG. The only policy-making role of the RSAB is to review policy proposals generated by the RSWG; it shall have no independent authority to formulate policy on its own. It is expected that the RSAB will respect the rough consensus of the RSWG wherever possible, without ceding its review function.¶
The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:¶
For the avoidance of doubt, the RSAB shall continue to operate in the case of any vacancies; however, such vacancies should be filled with all due speed.¶
The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for appointing delegates, such as provision for an open nominations period. If it becomes necessary to replace such a delegate for any reason, then for the sake of continuity the appointing body should name a new delegate to complete the former delegate's term.¶
To ensure the smooth functioning of the RFC Series, the RSAB shall include the IETF Executive Director as a non-voting member since the IETF LLC is ultimately responsible for implementation of policies governing the RFC Series. The RSAB may at its discretion include additional non-voting members, for instance a liaison from the RPC.¶
Whenever a new stream is created, the document that creates the stream shall specify if a voting member representing that stream shall also be added to the RSAB, along with any rules and processes related to that representative (e.g., whether the representative is a member of the body responsible for the stream or an appointed delegate thereof). In effect, the RSCE is the voting member representing the Editorial Stream.¶
The RSAB shall annually choose a chair from among its members using a method to be determined by the RSAB. If the chair position is vacated during the chair's term, the RSAB should choose a new chair from among its members.¶
The RSAB is expected to operate via email, in-person meetings, teleconferencing systems, and any additional tooling it deems necessary.¶
The RSAB shall keep a public record of its proceedings, including minutes of all meetings and a record of all decisions.¶
The RSAB shall announce plans and agendas for their meetings on the RFC Editor website and by email to the RSWG at least a week before such meetings. The meetings shall be open for public attendance and the RSAB may consider allowing open participation. If the RSAB needs to discuss a confidential matter in executive session, that part of the meeting shall be private to the RSAB, but must be noted on the agenda, and must be documented in the minutes with as much detail as confidentiality requirements permit.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #9, ISSUE #38, ISSUE #50, ISSUE #53, ISSUE #71, and ISSUE #82.¶
The intent is to provide an open forum by which policies related to the RFC series are defined and evolved. The general expectation is that all interested parties will participate in the RSWG, and that only under extreme circumstances should RSAB members need to hold "CONCERN" positions as described below.¶
Because policy issues can be difficult and contentious, RSWG participants and RSAB members are strongly encouraged to work together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]). In particular, RSWG members are encouraged to take RSAB concerns seriously, and RSAB members are encouraged to clearly express their concerns early in the process and to be responsive to the community. All parties are encouraged to respect the value of each stream and the long-term health and viability of the RFC series.¶
This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. RSAB members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal, there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal.¶
The following process shall be used to formulate or modify processes related to the RFC series:¶
Within a reasonable period of time, the RSAB will then poll among its members regarding the proposal. Positions may be as follows:¶
Any RSAB member holding a "CONCERN" position must explain their concern to the community in detail. The explanation might or might not be actionable.¶
A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:¶
Because RSAB members should have been participating in discussions within the RSWG, no position of CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RSWG.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #45 and ISSUE #69.¶
When a community call for comment is made, the RSAB sends a notice containing:¶
Notices will always be sent to the rfc-interest mailing list. The RSAB and RSWG should also send notices to other communities that may be interested in or impacted by a proposal as they see fit, following policies for those communities as appropriate. Notices are also to be made available and archived on the rfc-editor.org web site. In addition, other communication channels can be established for notices (e.g., using an RSS feed or social media).¶
A comment period will not last less than two weeks. Comments will be publicly archived on the rfc-editor.org web site.¶
Appeals of RSWG decisions shall be made to the RSAB. Decisions of the RSWG can be appealed only on grounds of failure to follow the correct process. Appeals should be made within 30 days of any action, or in the case of failure to act, of notice having been given to the RSWG. The RSAB will then decide if the process was followed and will direct the RSWG chairs as to what procedural actions are required.¶
Appeals of RSAB decisions shall be made to the IAB and should be made within thirty (30) days of public notice of the relevant RSAB decision (typically, when minutes are posted). The IAB shall decide whether a process failure occurred and what if any corrective action should take place.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #16 and ISSUE #36.¶
The IETF anti-harassment policy also applies to the RSWG and RSAB, which strive to create and maintain an environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Participants are expected to behave according to professional standards and to demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. See also [RFC7154], [RFC7776], and [RFC8716].¶
Publication of RFCs shall is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC).¶
A few general considerations apply:¶
All matters of budget, timetable, and impact on its performance targets, are between the RPC and IETF LLC.¶
The RPC shall report regularly to the IETF LLC, RSAB, RSWG, and broader community regarding its activities and any key risks or issues affecting it.¶
In the event that the RPC is required to make a decision without consultation that would normally deserve consultation, or makes a decision against the advice of the RSAB, the RPC must notify the RSAB.¶
This document does not specify the exact relationship between the IETF LLC and the RPC; for example, the work of the RPC could be performed by a separate corporate entity under contract to the IETF LLC, it could be performed by employees of the IETF LLC, or the IETF LLC could engage with independent contractors for some or all aspects of such work. The exact relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to determine.¶
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the engagement of the RPC. Therefore, the IETF LLC has authority over negotiating performance targets for the RPC and also has responsibility for ensuring that those targets are adhered to. The IETF LLC is empowered to appoint a manager or to convene a committee to complete these activities.¶
If individuals or groups within the community have concerns about the performance of the RPC, they can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate this activity, concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC. The IETF LLC is ultimately responsible to the community via the mechanisms outlined in its charter.¶
Under and consistent with the high-level policies defined for the RFC Series in general or particular streams, the RPC shall define more particular policies regarding matters related to the editorial preparation and final publication and dissemination of RFCs. Examples include:¶
RPC responsibilities include the following:¶
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF LLC. This section provides general guidance regarding several aspects of such activities.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #25, ISSUE #57, ISSUE #61, ISSUE #62, and ISSUE #63,¶
Vendor selection is done in cooperation with the streams and under the final authority of the IETF LLC.¶
The IETF LLC develops the work definition (the Statement of Work) for the RPC and manages the vendor selection process. The work definition is created within the IETF LLC budget and takes into account the needs of stream managers as well as community input.¶
The process to select and contract for an RFC Production Center and other RFC-related services is as follows:¶
The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses. They have been and remain part of the IETF LLC budget.¶
The RFC Series portion of the IETF LLC budget shall include funding to support the RSCE, the RFC Production Center, and the Independent Stream.¶
The IETF LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC Editor budget (and the authority to deny it). All relevant parties must work within the IETF LLC budgetary process.¶
NOTE: Discussion continues within the RFCED-Future Program regarding the appropriate title for an expert in technical publication processes. Reflecting provisional agreement, this document refers to the individual as the "RFC Series Consulting Editor" ("RSCE").¶
The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a senior technical publishing professional who will apply their deep knowledge of technical publishing processes to the RFC series.¶
The primary responsibilities of the RSCE are as follows:¶
Matters on which the RSCE might be consulted could include the following (see also Section 4 of [RFC8729]):¶
The IETF LLC is responsible for the method of and management of the engagement of the RSCE, including selection, evaluation, and the timely filling of any vacancy. Therefore, whether the RSCE role is structured as a contractual or employee relationship is a matter for the IETF LLC to determine.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #12, ISSUE #24, and ISSUE #55.¶
The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role. The selection committee will take into account the role definition as well as any other information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in making its decision. The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSCE.¶
Periodically, the IETF LLC will evaluate the performance of the RSCE, including a call for confidential input from the community. The IETF LLC will produce a draft performance evaluation for the RSAB (not including the RSCE), which will provide feedback to the IETF LLC.¶
This document creates the Editorial Stream as separate space for publication of policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and related information regarding the RFC Series as a whole.¶
Any and all future documents produced by the RSWG and approved by the RSAB shall be published in the Editorial Stream. Documents pubished in the Editorial Stream shall have a status of Informational. The Editorial Stream is not authorized to publish RFCs that are Standards Track or Best Current Practice, since such RFCs are reserved to the IETF Stream [RFC8729].¶
The Editorial Stream will be used only to specify and update policies, procedures, guidelies, rules, and related information regarding the RFC Series as a whole; no other use of the Editorial Stream is authorized by this memo and no other streams are so authorized. This policy may be changed only by agreement of the IAB, IESG, and IETF LLC.¶
The requirements and process for creating any additional RFC streams are outside the scope of this document.¶
NOTE: This section is intended to address ISSUE #22, ISSUE #35, ISSUE #63, and ISSUE #73.¶
The same security considerations as those in [RFC8729] apply. The processes for the publication of documents must prevent the introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be in place to prevent these published documents from being changed by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, originals that are not machine-readable) need to be secured against any kind of data storage failure.¶
The IETF LLC should take these security considerations into account during the implementation and enforcement of any relevant contracts.¶
This document places responsibility for coordination of registry value assignments with the RPC. The IETF LLC facilitates management of the relationship between the RPC and IANA.¶
This document does not create a new registry nor does it register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action is required.¶
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Because this document (if approved) will be the first RFC in the Editorial Series, please apply the changes in this section to its boilerplate if directed to do so by the IAB.¶
This document specifies the following text for the "Status of This Memo" section of RFCs published in the Editorial Stream. Any changes to this boilerplate must be made through the RFC Series Policy Definition process specified in this document.¶
Because all Editorial Stream RFCs have a status of Informational, the first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as specified in Appendix A.2.1 of [RFC7841].¶
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as follows:¶
"This document is a product of the RFC Series Policy Definition process. It represents the consensus of the RFC Series Working Group approved by the RFC Series Approval Board. Such documents are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section shall be as specified in Section 3.5 of RFC 7841.¶
The RSWG and RSAB together provide a public process by which policies for the RFC Series can be defined. It is expected that these bodies will therefore cover many of the responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor function as defined by [RFC8728]. For example, representation to the IETF (Section 2.1.2.1 of [RFC8728] is no longer necessary because IETF participants can get involved in the RSWG, because the IETF has a delegate on the RSAB, and because the RPC provides reports directly to the community.¶
In practice the RFC Production Center (RPC) and RFC Publisher roles have been performed by the same entity and this practice is expected to continue; therefore this document dispenses with the distinction and refers only to the RPC.¶
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document dispenses with the RSOC.¶
This document incorporates some text directly from [RFC8729] and also makes the following updates:¶
As described above, several responsibilities previously assigned to the "RFC Editor function" are now performed by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). These include aspects of operational oversight (Section 3.3 of [RFC8729]), policy oversight (Section 3.4 of [RFC8729]), the editing, processing, and publication of documents (Section 4.2 of [RFC8729]), and series-wide guidelines and rules (Section 4.4 of [RFC8729]).¶
In addition, some details regarding these responsibilities have been modified to accord with the new framework defined in this document.¶
Portions of this document were borrowed from [RFC5620], [RFC6635], [RFC8728], [RFC8729], and earlier proposals submitted within the RFCED-Future Program by Martin Thomson, Brian Carpenter, and Michael StJohns. Thanks to the chairs of the Program, Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen, for their leadership and assistance. Thanks also for feedback and proposed text to Jari Arkko, Sarah Banks, Scott Bradner, Carsten Bormann, Nevil Brownlee, Ben Campbell, Jay Daley, Martin Duerst, Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Sandy Ginoza, Bron Gondwana, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Christian Huitema, Ole Jacobsen, John Klensin, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ted Lemon, John Levine, Lucy Lynch, Andrew Malis, Larry Masinter, S. Moonesamy, Mark Nottingham, Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, Julian Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Doug Royer, Rich Salz, Tim Wicinski, and Nico Williams.¶